Ridley Scott's Napoleon - Murray, when you bring me out can you introduce me as le petit caporal?

Destacado
You know how a bad review actually lowers my opinion of a film critic? Well, after this, She-hulk, and the Flash, I trust you Kiwis a lot more than Film Threat.
 
Doctor of Autism dijo:
While Josephine is important to his life, her relationship with Napoleon didn’t need to take up a large chunk of screen time.
Presiona para expandir...
I give 0 shits about any sort of "historical" product that could ever come from Pedowood since I know they are just going to make shit up without batting an eye, but this line in particular reeks of "we need something to engage the WHAMENS!".
 
Reading the thread, what really jumps to me is the emasculation of Napoleon. We can't have a strong popular man, he needs to be motivated by a woman (who cucks him to show her domination) and be motivated by earlier inadequacies rather an ideology. It's not just that modern films are made for women, but they do their best to now accidentally make men look good.
 
wtfNeedSignUp dijo:
Reading the thread, what really jumps to me is the emasculation of Napoleon. We can't have a strong popular man, he needs to be motivated by a woman (who cucks him to show her domination) and be motivated by earlier inadequacies rather an ideology. It's not just that modern films are made for women, but they do their best to now accidentally make men look good.
Presiona para expandir...
Well it's not surprising because this was directed by a british man and the british have a seething hatred for the French, so in hindsight the way this film ended up is not surprising.
 
I watched the film and why does Napoleon come across as severely autistic in conversations most of the time? I mean I understand he was tongue tied around women but Napoleon didnt really come across as a charismatic or inspiring figure even when leading he really seems like a sperg most of the time.

The battle scenes where kinda neat but as some posters noted the scale seems way off in Waterloo.

I feel like the scope of the story got lost in the film as we are shown a setting then catapulted forward a shitton of time without a lot of context sometimes and it makes the film overall feel a bit fragmented or unfocused as some campaigns and battles are shown and some of Boney's personal relationships and politicking are shown but it ends up with both halfs feeling kinda unfinished. I saw this with my missus and when time skipped forward I often had to explain when and where we had been dropped next.

I feel like this kinda bio would do better as part of a multipart series on tv or something so they can go more indepth into the full history I guess?
 
I hope this movie opens people's eyes to the fact Ridley Scott is a hack, has always been a hack and will always be a hack. He's just terrible and any inadvertently good movies he was involved in were bouyed by his better collaborators.
 
Pedophobe dijo:
He's just terrible and any inadvertently good movies he was involved in were bouyed by his better collaborators.
Presiona para expandir...
2049 >>> OG Blade Runner
Alien 3 Director's Cut >>>> Aliens > Alien We do not talk about Resurrection

Even he's not as good as directing a Hannibal Lecter movie as either Michael Mann in 1986, Jonathan Demme in 1991 or even to a lesser extent Brett Ratner in 2002. We do not talk about Hannibal Rising
 
MadStan dijo:
I’ll go see it. Knowing Ridley’s hates means he will show the other side of Napoleon- the insecure and torn side of his character. So I expect Ridley to show us the insides of Napoleon- meaning the side of him that let him attempt to take all of Europe and walk away from his own army twice.
Presiona para expandir...
Ridley's not going to show his failings. He's going to make shit up and leave out Nappy's actual failings (being an antisocial, opportunistic rat who backstabbed every single authority figure he ever served and still being stupid enough to employ Tallyrand twice, being a colossal coward whose greatest victories were due to luck and whose confidence crumbled whenever he suffered a loss, having affairs while being married to a woman he married out of mere sexual passion, being a crap father, etc)
 
HyperboreanRightsActivist dijo:
Ridley's not going to show his failings. He's going to make shit up and leave out Nappy's actual failings (being an antisocial, opportunistic rat who backstabbed every single authority figure he ever served and still being stupid enough to employ Tallyrand twice, being a colossal coward whose greatest victories were due to luck and whose confidence crumbled whenever he suffered a loss, having affairs while being married to a woman he married out of mere sexual passion, being a crap father, etc)
Presiona para expandir...
All Ridley showed in Napoleon is him being a retarded autistic incel who constantly spills his spaghetti and barely anything of him as a general.
 
HyperboreanRightsActivist dijo:
Ridley's not going to show his failings. He's going to make shit up and leave out Nappy's actual failings (being an antisocial, opportunistic rat who backstabbed every single authority figure he ever served and still being stupid enough to employ Tallyrand twice, being a colossal coward whose greatest victories were due to luck and whose confidence crumbled whenever he suffered a loss, having affairs while being married to a woman he married out of mere sexual passion, being a crap father, etc)
Presiona para expandir...
Well I saw the film. Meh. A lot to be said but why bother, it was a reasonable film, but that is all is was.
 
HyperboreanRightsActivist dijo:
Ridley's not going to show his failings. He's going to make shit up and leave out Nappy's actual failings (being an antisocial, opportunistic rat who backstabbed every single authority figure he ever served and still being stupid enough to employ Tallyrand twice, being a colossal coward whose greatest victories were due to luck and whose confidence crumbled whenever he suffered a loss, having affairs while being married to a woman he married out of mere sexual passion, being a crap father, etc)
Presiona para expandir...
Napoleon was a bad father, didn't know when to quit, and had too many shitty/unreliable marshals for his own good. Still, the rest of that paragraph is pure coalition cope and propaganda to save face about how their country's armies got kicked around by a filthy French commoner general for almost a decade. All that success was possible because he was among the first to go, "What if I spread out my armies instead of lumping them in one spot". Once they learned how to do that basic thing while avoiding any battle with the man himself they could gradually push him back to Paris. I'm sure the bankrolling and blockade by the British also helped them as well. I understand that there are a lot of things to hate about Napoleon, but saying he had virtually no talent at all is a level of historical contrarianism that even I can't muster. Ridley just wanted to take a beloved and praised historical figure he hated down a peg. I wouldn't be surprised if he made an Alexander the Great movie that tried to paint the man as an evil Macedonian Ghengis Khan who got "lucky" and destroyed the poor Persians who dindu muffin. Nothing or no one is simply allowed to be great without some contrived meta-deconstruction attached to it nowadays.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo